RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9. 10. 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing thereby writ petition preferred by present appellant. In the writ petition, the appellant had prayed for quashment of the order dated 27. 1. 1978 whereby the Government approved of lease of a strip of land in favour of respondent No. 4 Shyam Lal for 99 years by Municipal Council, Sriganganagar.
(2.) FACTS of the matter as disclosed in the memorandum of writ petition are that the appellant constructed a house on plot No. 1127 situated in old Abadi, Kachchi Diggi, Ward No. 21 Sriganganagar. Respondent No. 4 had his house adjacent to the aforesaid house of appellant on its eastern side. There was however a small piece of land measuring 627 sq. feet on east southern side of the aforesaid plot of appellant. A site plan of the land in dispute indicating the location of the two houses has been placed on record as Exhibit 1. With the help of site-plan, the appellant contends that the disputed strip of land form integral part of his plot No. 1127 to make it rectangular in shape. Respondent No. 4 however firstly made an unauthorized and illegal encroachment over the said strip of land marked `x' in Exhibit-1 and then started making efforts to get it leased out to him for 99 years. Appellant however as a law abiding citizen approached Municipal Council, Sriganganagar for purchase of the disputed land on 23. 12. 1962. The then Administrator Municipal Council, Sriganganagar examined respective claims of both the parties and inspected the site on 22. 7. 1963. He thereupon directed for removal of unauthorized encroachment made by respondent No. 4 and for auctioning this strip of land. A copy of the order dated 22. 7. 1963 has been placed on record to substantiate this. It is alleged that respondent No. 4 manipulated to avoid compliance of the aforesaid order and with his persistent efforts ultimately succeeded in getting a resolution passed from the Municipal Council on 30. 6. 1965 proposing to lease out the aforesaid strip of land in favour of respondent No. 4 for 99 years after he had withdrawn the civil suit filed on the subject and paid a sum of Rs. 50/- as cost of litigation. It was however imperative for the Municipal Council to seek previous sanction of the State Government for grant of any lease as per requirement of Section 80 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `act of 1959' ). When the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar sent such proposal to the Government, it declined to sanction the grant of lease in favour of respondent No. 4 vide order dated 17. 1. 1966. According to the appellant, the Municipal Council, Sriganganagar ought to have immediately put the disputed strip of land to auction after receipt of Government order dated 17. 1. 1966. The respondent No. 4 however again succeeded in getting the proposal re-submitted to the Government by communication of the Municipal Council dated 1. 5. 1967. The State Government by its order dated 26. 9. 1967 again reiterated its earlier stand and rejected the proposal for leasing out land in favour of respondent No. 4 and directed it to be auctioned. When respondent No. 4 still persisted in making representations at various levels, the State Government finally by detailed order passed on 5. 1. 1971 again reiterated its earlier order and wrote to the Municipal Council. Sriganganagar that there are already rules regarding sale of strip of land. According to such rules, if more than one person desire to purchase any strip of land, then sale should be made only by way of auction. The Municipal Council, therefore, was directed to put the land in question to auction. According to the appellant, order dated 5. 1. 1971 was a final order passed by State Government in terms of the requirement of Section 80 (2) of the Act of 1959. In spite of repeated efforts of the appellant however the Municipal Council did not take steps to make compliance of aforesaid Government order. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 still persisted in making efforts to win over the authorities in his favour and ultimately succeeded in getting order dated 27. 1. 1978 passed from the Government in the Local Self Department thereby sanctioning the lease of the disputed land in favour of the respondent No. 4 for a period of 99 years. This order was passed without any notice to the appellant and in utter ignorance of the previous repeated orders passed by the Government refusing to accord such sanction. Order dated 27. 1. 1978 does not make any mention of the previous rejection orders and the direction to the Municipal Council for putting the land to auction. When the appellant came to know about this order, he through his counsel immediately filed a review petition on 28. 2. 1978 before the Government. He was called for personal hearing on 14. 4. 1978 but no hearing on that date was given and the matter was adjourned to 4. 5. 1978 on which date also hearing did not take place and the respondents did not communicate any further date of hearing to the appellant. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 started raising construction over the disputed land and having completed the boundary wall was now proceeding to construct the house. It was at this stage that the appellant preferred his earlier writ petition namely S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/1978. This Court by its order dated 22. 8. 1978 passed in the said writ petition directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The writ petition was finally disposed of by judgment dated 19. 12. 1984 with the direction to the Government to dispose of the review petition dated 27. 7. 1978 within six months and parties were directed to maintain status quo till disposal of the aforesaid review petition. It was contended that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 27. 1. 1978. According to rule 30 of Rajasthan Municipal (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (for short `rules of 1974') previous permission for every sale or disposal of urban land from the Government was necessary where the value of land exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/ -. In these circumstances, the appellant submitted an application to the respondent on 24. 8. 1985 with the certified copy of the judgment dated 19. 12. 1984 and prayed that his review petition may be decided after providing him an opportunity of hearing. Nothing was however done at the end of the respondents. It was in these circumstances that the appellant filed another writ petition on 12. 5. 1986 with the prayer that the impugned order dated 27. 1. 1978 be quashed and set-aside and the respondent No. 4 be restrained from making construction over the plot in question and further that the Government and the Municipal Council be directed to allot the said strip of land by auction to the highest bidder. The aforesaid writ petition was contested by the Government as also by the respondent No. 4. While the Government did not file any reply to the writ petition, the respondent No. 4 in his reply contested the matter and contended that the sole grievance with which the present writ petition has been filed by the appellant was about failure of the Government to decide his review petition. The said review petition had already been rejected by order of the Government dated 4. 10. 1978 but this order was not brought to the notice of the court at the time of decision of the earlier writ petition. The order on review petition was passed after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Since the appellant suppressed this material fact from this Court at the time of decision of the earlier writ petition, he disentitled himself to grant of any relief. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the aforesaid reply in which he contended that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 never conveyed to him the decision of his review petition dated 4. 10. 1978. The respondent No. 4 in his reply has not even disclosed the source of knowledge about rejection of review petition and the date on which he got this information. It was however asserted that no communication whatsoever was sent to the appellant regarding decision of the review petition on 4. 10. 1978. It was, therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein.
(3.) THE learned single Judge by his judgment dated 19. 10. 1995 dismissed the writ petition holding that grant of lease deed in favour of respondent No. 4 cannot be considered as unreasonable or against public interest. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. We have heard Shri B. L. Purohit Advocate assisted by Shri J. L. Purohit Advocate for the appellant, Shri Rameshwar Dave, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri R. S. Saluja for contesting respondent No. 4 and perused the record. Shri B. L. Purohit while reiterating the arguments raised in the writ petition submitted that according to rule 23 of the Rules of 1974, the Municipal Council was required to have put the disputed strip of land to auction rather than leasing it out to respondent No. 4 for 99 years. Learned counsel argued that rule 23 of the Rules of 1974 categorically provides that small strips of land which are not fit to be disposed of as plots shall be sold to the owner of the adjoining plot at the market value to be calculated keeping in view the prevailing price of land. Where there are two or more persons interested in strip of land, auction shall be held only between those whose plots or buildings adjoins the strip of land provided that before auctioning such strip of land a public notice shall be issued. Learned counsel argued that the proposal of the Municipal Council for leasing out the strip of land to respondent No. 4 was turned down by the State Government not once but consecutively on three occasions by orders respectively passed on 17. 1. 1966, 26. 9. 1967 and 5. 1. 1971 and in last two orders a positive direction was given to the Municipal Council to put the strip of land to auction. The State Government passed these orders in exercise of its power conferred upon it by section 80 (2) of the Act of 1959 and did not thereafter have any power of reviewing its previous orders. The subsequent order of the government dated 27. 1. 1978 permitting grant of lease for 99 years in favour of respondent No. 4 was thus passed without the authority of law. The said order is therefore liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. ;